Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

One of the greatest unspoken requirement of having a career as an in the author is probably the biggest, most important requirement as well.

Being able to write an interesting and compelling book.

Craft matters.

All too often we talk about things like marketing, advertising and cover design, about strategies and longevity, but we ignore speaking of this requirement. Part of it, is the fact that most authors aren't set up to critique another author. Doing so, is difficult. A lot of bruised egos and long term issues arise because of critiques. The other problem is that often, what one person might consider bad writing, is considered good by another. Or it just be a question of preferences. There are authors in my genre who have massive followings who I don't like reading. 

Is their work bad? Or is it just my taste that is wrong? The readers are the ones who decide here, not you.

Here's a concrete example.

I don't like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. I think  large portions of it is just downright boring. Sam and Frodo's walk through Mordor is an area that I have never finished reading. There are descriptions and descriptions of landscapes that I have no desire to read. Ever. And of course, the book has multiple endings. It's something that has been commented on in the movie in particular, but the book itself is pretty bad.

Taking all that into account, it's difficult to talk about craft. Yet, it matters. In LitRPG, we have a lot of beginner writers. Some of them are getting quite good, and some are still treading water, learning craft. Because the genre is so hot, beginner writers were still considered good and were able to make decent careers in the beginning. Now, look at royal road. What used to be acceptable on royal road and is now getting trashed, because there's so many good or better writers coming, or just the books in general out there.

And then we get into existing genres, things like epic fantasy where other writers who have been doing it for very long time are being compared against new writers, the bar for excellence, the bar for success becomes much higher to cross. It's stops becoming a minimum requirement but a necessity.

Sometimes, I look at some authors who complain about never having any success and I scan through their work. Sometimes, it's cover or a blurb issue. That's why they haven't gotten any sales. 

But sometimes, it's a writing issue. 

There's nothing wrong with putting out your first attempt at writing for sale, but realized that a lot of times what we wrote in the beginning isn't that good. Learning the craft of writing is important, and learning how to do writing as business is difficult. At a certain point, if an individual isn't making it as an author, it just might be because they are not a good writer yet.

Note that yet. 

Like anything else, writing is a craft and art form. There are those who start out with some talent at it, and then throw in the hours to become good. There are those who don't have the talent but work at getting good, and eventually become better than ones who had talent. But, in either case, practice and words on the page are needed.

That's why I think sometimes, the regular refrain that you should be writing and marketing immediately might be wrong. If your writing is not a standard, it doesn't matter how many people come in and buy your work through a Facebook post or via an AMS ad. A look inside might drive them away, or they might never finish your book.

Craft matters.

Comments

Han Pol

That is of course right but good enough is very unspecific. And I think it also has to do with writing speed, some authors like you produce a fairly large number of books in a year as do some others that I read and that is pretty awsome. While some write much longer on one book. I think that overall the long writen books by full time authors are of a higher quality, But then they also have a much higher production cost or time invested in their writing and often a bigger cast of important characters that to me feels more organic.

Tao Wong

It is unspecific. And that's partly because what is 'good enough' will vary per person per time period. It's a moving target. Another part of it is that, really, it's up to readers. Not authors, not critics, not editors - readers. It's funny about the question of 'more time = better quality', because so many of our 'classics' were written in short , super short periods. Clockwork Orange - 3 weeks. On the Road by Kerouc - 21 days. A Study in Scarlet - 3 weeks. A Christmas Carol - 6 weeks. Hell, King is known to write 2k a day. Everyday. That's a book every 2 months. There are things you can do, with a multi-revised book that you can't with a fast written one. Things like crafting words, sentences till they shine (Rothfuss does that and took 8/9 years to get book 1 out). But, there are problems with that kind of method too (pacing, production, etc.) that you can't see by revising the same book again and again. Building a sprawling world takes time, along with the numerous characters involved. But, those are a 'type' of series that dictate a huge sprawl. I find many of those get 'lost' though, because the book is trying to do too much. Jordan's work got lost in the mid-books because he had to recap so much. Martin... well, we know where that is. Malazan is probably one of the best series that manages to stay 'together' over its 12 books. And Sanderson does pretty well, but even then; his cast of characters are somewhat more limited.

Alex Dudley

Have you read the stormlight archive? How do you feel about it?

Tao Wong

Read the first 2 books. Loved them. Haven't gotten around to book 3 yet, though I have it sitting beside me. Heee.